Humani Generis

To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and Other Local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace and Communion With the Holy See.

Venerable Brethren, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction!

Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious
matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men,
but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially
today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked
on all sides.

2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should
always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking,
human reason by its own natural force and light can
rrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by
His providence watches over and governs the world, and also of the
natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there
are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and
fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with
God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the
sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order
to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the
human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered
both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil
passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false
or at least doubtful.

3. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be
considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths
which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the
present condition of the human race, may be known by all mean readily
-- with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.[1]

4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences
difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the
Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God
has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural
light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion.
For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse
and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are
available, but also the impulses of actual grace.[2]

5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the
Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not
a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly
hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the
domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and
audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the
world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this
opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every
idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and
propagate their dialectical materialism.

6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all
that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new
erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns
itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all
consideration of their immutable essences.

7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing
value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of
all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical
speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.

8. In all this confusion of opinion it is some consolation
to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring
to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to
acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred
Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same
time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly
they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the
value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God
the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of
the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve
and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at
variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience
also. For often those who disagree with the True Church complain
openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly
bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.

9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave
duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in
the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or
less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these
same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated
unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these
false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally,
because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation
of philosophical and theological truths.

10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive
such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there
would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of
the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in
Apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered
ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves
from the Sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of
gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along
with them into error.

11. Another danger is perceived which is all the more
serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue.
There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual
confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great
and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and
honest men; these advocate an "eirenism"
setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at
joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in
former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics That
branch of the science of theology which explains the reasons for the
Church's existence and doctrine of the Church did not constitute an
obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so
today some are presumptuous enough to question seriously whether
theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be
perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more
efficacious propagation throughout the world among men of every
culture and religious opinion.

12. Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical
teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through
the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any
reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent
"eirenicism" seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of
fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by
Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the
defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of
which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.

13. These new opinions, whether they originate from a
reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not
always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same
terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories
that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without
cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation
proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal[3] to many,
especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings
intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures.
Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of
the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also
among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.

14. In theology, some want to reduce to a minimum the
meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long
established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by
Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of
Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by
the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is
stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine
revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions
of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in
this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of
Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has
been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern
needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts
of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism[4] or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can
and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are
never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and
ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it
absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new
concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various
philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments,
so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various
ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they
say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of
the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that
have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings
and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

16. It is evident from what We have already said, that such
tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but
that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly
taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it.
Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and
even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is
capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the
Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It
is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of
philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless,
the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic
teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation.
These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true
knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the
Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have
not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by
them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

17. Hence to neglect, or to reject,or to devalue so many
and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and
perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common
talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the
holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost
in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do
this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and
by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets
which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die
tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make
dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and
notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to
the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline
which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based
on theological reasoning.

18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass
from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt
for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such
authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching
Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an
obstacle in the way of science. Some non-Catholics consider it as an
unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from
reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher
in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal
criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted
by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and
Divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the
duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which
more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the
constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed
and forbidden by the Holy See,"[5] is sometimes as little known as if
it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the
Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church,
is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of
giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have
found in the Ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they
assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute
among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and
the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be
explained from the writings of the Ancients.

19. Although these things seem well said, still they are
not free form error. It is true that Popes generally leave
theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways
by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that
many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now
admit of discussion.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in
Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing
such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their
Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary
teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who hears you,
hears me";[6] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in
Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic
doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents
purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it
is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the
Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

21. It is also true that theologians must always return to
the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out
how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found
either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.[7]
Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many
rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted.
Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources
remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a
deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know
from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be
on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the
sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living
Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the
deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith
our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each
of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching
Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in
the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a
procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of
what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used.
Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the
most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the
Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words,
and with very good reason: "in that sense in which it has been
defined by the Church."

22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned
above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even
against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far
as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's[8] definition that
God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the
opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from
error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of
moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense
of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the
only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they
will take no account of the Analogy of Faith[9] and the Tradition of
the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the
Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the
purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture
according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely
revealed truth.

23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the
literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked
out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should
yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic
or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament,
which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown
open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties
vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal
meaning of the Scriptures.

24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles
and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy
memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus," and
Benedict XV in the Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by
Ourselves in the Encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu."

25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have
already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology.
It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the
help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the
world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is
necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine
love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowledge
of the free actions of men -- all this in contradiction to the decrees
of the Vatican Council.[10]

26. Some also question whether angels are personal beings,
and whether matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the
gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create
intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific
vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some
pervert the very concept of Original Sin, along with the concept of
sin in general as an offense against god, as well as the idea of
satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic
notion of substance, should be so modified that the Real Presence of
Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism,
whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of
the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the
faithful members of His Mystical Body.

27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained
in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources
of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the
Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[11] Some reduce to a
meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in
order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the
reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.

28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among
certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by
false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once
again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude
clear errors and dangers of error.

29. It is well known how highly the Church regards human
reason, for it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the
existence of God, personal and one; to prove beyond doubt from divine
signs the very foundations of the Christian faith; to express properly
the law which the Creator has imprinted in the hearts of men; and
finally to attain to some notion, indeed a very fruitful notion, of
mysteries.[12] But reason can perform these functions safely and well
only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound
philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by
earlier Christian ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of
an even higher order, since the Teaching Authority of the Church, in
the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental
tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men
of great genius. For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by
the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the
unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality,
and finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and
unchangeable truth.

30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither
directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does
not hold for many other things, especially those principles and
fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in
these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more
convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less
useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human
mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false
principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth
and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of
all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human
mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the
ages and by Divine Revelation. Whatever new truth the sincere human
mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already
acquired, since God, the Highest Truth, has created and guides the
human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly
established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may
have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and
structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no
Christian, therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace
eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day
to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a
balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has,
with grave danger and damage to his faith.

31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why
the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy
"according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic
Doctor,"[13] since, as we well know from the experience of centuries,
the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both of teaching
students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony
with Divine Revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding
the foundation of the faith and for reaping, safely and usefully, the
fruits of sound progress.[14]

32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly
call it "outmoded" in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its
method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true;
whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality,
cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually
complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our
traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution
of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic
theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but
this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the
needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial
philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the
contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life,
which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol
other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and
occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or
theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be
reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this
is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories
they call immanentism, or idealism or materialism, whether historic or
dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the
type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of
metaphysics.

33. Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our
schools for regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition,
while neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is
simply not true. Never has Christian philosophy denied the usefulness
and efficacy of good dispositions of soul for perceiving and embracing
moral and religious truths. In fact, it has always taught that the
lack of these dispositions of good will can be the reason why the
intellect, influenced by the passions and evil inclinations, can be so
obscured that it cannot see clearly. Indeed, St. Thomas holds that
the intellect can in some way perceive higher goods of the moral
order, whether natural or supernatural, inasmuch as it experiences a
certain "connaturality" with these goods, whether this "connaturality"
be purely natural, or the result of grace;[15] and it is clear how
much even this somewhat obscure perception can help the reason in
its investigations. However it is one thing to admit the power of the
dispositions of the will in helping reason to gain a more certain and
firm knowledge of moral truths; it is quite another thing to say, as
these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition and act of
will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain power
of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by using his reason
decide with certainty what is true and is to be accepted, turns to his
will, by which he freely chooses among opposite opinions.

34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger
the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely
connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics;
they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with
certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but
rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal
God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to
avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and
affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors
Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the
Vatican Council.[16] It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these
aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy,
directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching
Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission
not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed
truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences
themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of
erroneous opinions.

35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions
which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith.
in fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take
these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would
be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must
be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort
of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred
Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions
are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God,
then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church
does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human
sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of
men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine
of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human
body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic
faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both
opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution,
be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and
measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment
of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting
authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of
faith.[17] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion,
when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and
living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts
which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts,
and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which
demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural
opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means
enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion
which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth
true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from
him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain
number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an
opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed
truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church
propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is
passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[18]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences,
so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a
particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of
the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this
system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter
which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the
Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[19] This letter, in fact,
clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although
properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the
best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do
nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be
further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the
Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the
mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal
truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a
popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen
people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything
from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be
forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration,
through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting
and evaluating those documents.

39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been
inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a
par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an
extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity
which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent
that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

40. Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic
doctors, the fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universities,
in seminaries and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from
those errors which today, whether through a desire for novelty or
through a certain immoderate zeal for the apostolate, are being spread
either openly or covertly. But we know also that such new opinions
can entice the incautious; and therefore we prefer to withstand the
very beginnings rather than to administer the medicine after the
disease has grown inveterate.

41. For this reason, after mature reflexion and consideration before God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We
charge the Bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders,
binding them most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care
that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in
writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner
whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful.

42. Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be
aware that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of
teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We
have ordained. That due reverend and submission which in their
unceasing labor they must profess toward the Teaching Authority of the
Church, let them instill also into the minds and hearts of their
students.

43. Let them strive with every force and effort to further
the progress of the sciences which they teach; but let them also be
careful not to transgress the limits which We have established for the
protection of the truth of Catholic faith and doctrine. With regard
to new questions, which modern culture and progress have brought to
the foreground, let them engage in most careful research, but with the
necessary prudence and caution; finally, let them not think, indulging
in a false "eirenicism," that the dissident and the erring can happily
be brought back to the bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found
in the Church is not sincerely taught to all without corruption or
diminution.

44. Relying on this hope, which will be increased by your
pastoral care, as a pledge of celestial gifts and a sign of Our
paternal benevolence, We impart with all Our heart to each and all of
you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people the Apostolic
Benediction.

45. Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, 12 August 1950, the
twelfth year of Our Pontificate.